Albemarle County Planning
Commission

August 14, 2007

The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a meeting, work session and public
hearing on Tuesday, August 14, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., at the County Office
Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville,
Virginia.

Members attending were Jon Cannon, Eric Strucko; Duane Zobrist and Pete
Craddock. Absent were Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Calvin Morris, Vice-Chairman and
Bill Edgerton. Julia Monteith, AICP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University
of Virginia was absent.

LOCATION: Avon Street Extended, approx. 1,000
feet north of the intersection of Avon Street Ext. and Route 20, south of
existing Avon Court

TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 90, Parcel 31

MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Scottsville (Rebecca
Ragsdale)

Ms. Ragsdale presented a power point
presentation and summarized the proposal.

·This is a work session to review
the proposal. The project is still under review and the public hearing is
scheduled for October 16. Staff requests comments from the Commission on some
of the issues staff has been discussing with the applicant mainly relating to
the proposed design and layout and private street request.

·The request is to rezone from R-1
to R-6 with a proffered application plan. The project is located beside the
Avon Park project that is under construction. The 31 units proposed include 1
single-family residence that would be preserved on the site with a mix of
housing types on about a 5 acre property. It would be 6 dwelling units per
acre. It is designated Neighborhood Density. Therefore, that is within the
Comprehensive Plan guidelines.

·Staff provided an introduction or
overview of the project and explained where it is within the context of some of
the other projects in the neighborhood. In the staff report the primary
concerns raised is regarding what is happening in the area. Hathaway Street
would be extended as a public street and meet the Neighborhood Model street
sections that staff desires. Stratford Way would serve the proposed units
within the project and is proposed as a private street. It does not propose the
planting strip that staff desires. The planting would be provided on the
individual lots. It ends in a hammer head with access to the existing house
that would be preserved and to the new unit would come around. There is
pedestrian access proposed to the green space/open space amenity area within the
project, which will also have a storm water management pond.

·There would be the need for
grinder pumps. Staff typically defers to the Service Authority on that. The
Service Authority has said that they are okay with them. Grinder pumps were
approved in Avon Park I. Staff generally has concerns regarding easements and
maintenance. The applicant has submitted a plan showing how they have worked
out those easements for the grinder pumps.

·Draft proffers have been
submitted and reviewed by staff, which commits them to the application plan.
The applicant is meeting the affordable housing goals by providing 15 percent as
the number of units as affordable and then a cash equivalent because 4 ½ if how
it works out for this project. The cash proffers are slightly less than what the
Board has considered in their Cash Proffer Policy. The applicant was seeking
initially credit for Neighborhood Model Design and the Board has said they would
not be entertaining any additional credits to the Cash Proffer Policy for that.

·The main purpose of this
discussion was to talk about staff’s concern regarding the lots and how the
access is provided to them; how the open space amenity area relates to the
residential units; and then comments regarding the private street requests. In
general staff is supportive of that if the section is revised to accommodate the
street trees. Staff’s concern is that this would function as an alley and not
as a street that pedestrians would be comfortable walking on. This project has
front loaded garages within the development and parking is relegated in that
manner.

·Questions raised in the staff
report include the design and layout issues. Is the design and layout
appropriate given some of the background? Does the Commission support Strafford
Way as a private street? Then any other issues that are in need of resolution
should be addressed.

Mr. Strucko invited the applicant to address
the Commission.

Frank Pohl, with Weatherhill Development, asked to comment on the site
constraints.

One is the access from the north on Hathaway
Street. They are tied into that access point being that is a public road.
It was intended for this continuation. All of the contours show there it
is pretty far down and they have to get up into this site. One of the
constraints they have for a public road is the maximum slope to enter the
site, which limits the elevation of the site. Therefore, it limits the
serviceability of sewer to the site. Residential development townhouses
have to be served by gravity sewer. The individual detached houses can be
served by grinder pump. They are basically at the limits where the
townhouses stop and the single family detached start at the elevation where
sewer will service the site. That is one reason why they have the layout
that way.

The topography goes down approximately 15
percent down to the front yard. They also face some road constraints for
the slope requirements. The maximum public street requirements are 10
percent, and they are 15 percent. They are trying to meet a reasonable
grade without having to demolish the existing residence down below.

With regards to the comment about putting a
sidewalk on Avon Street, they can definitely look at that. He noted that
there was no sidewalk provided on Avon Park Phase 1 and there are no other
sidewalks along Avon Street on this side. But, they will be happy to
address that issue.

The reason they did not provide street trees
is that they went ahead on this project and laid out all of the utilities,
including water, sewer, electric and all the cable utilities. In a private
street they need to have all the utilities and easements. They need to have
a 10’ easement around the entire water meter. To accommodate they have had
to move the sidewalk forward and the meter is back in order that they can
get the street trees in behind the sidewalk. If they put in a green space
area it will be covered by the easement. That is a site challenge that they
have. If the Commission feels strongly that this is not appropriate they
can continue to look at this. But, they feel this is something that is
driving that condition.

There was a comment about extending Hathaway
Street to the property line. They have extended Hathaway Street as far as
they can without grading off of the site. The plan to provide the Hathaway
Street connection to the next property. If this street is continued through
and ultimately connects through to potentially Biscuit Run then the
developer that does that connection would obviously provide that
connection. They do provide right-of-way all the way to the property line.

Regarding Entrance Corridor issues, they are
going to demolish the existing structures. They hope that will make this
more pleasing to driving through the area by not having structures right on
Avon Street. The tot lot substitution is something that staff can
administratively approve. They have received comments from staff that a tot
lot in the open space area is not something that is desirable considering
the location of the Entrance Corridor. They are proposing a covered area
with a more passive type of recreation. There is a tot lot in Avon Park I
that they envision being part of. They envision possibly being part of the
same Homeowner’s Association. So they don’t see the need for a tot lot in
that area.

Additional landscaping will be provided
along the Entrance Corridor to buffer the passive recreation. They plan to
close off the road. There is a comment from staff and their neighbors
about who will be using this area and how long can they use it. They can
chain off the front. They would like to maintain the existing gravel
driveway for maintenance purposes, but secure its access. The existing
landscaping is quite extensive on this project. They do not plan to clear
any more than necessary.

They met with the neighbors. One of their
concerns was privacy and potential trespassers on property. It is a highly
wooded area and children like to play in the woods. There was an idea to
provide some type of fence, possibly a 6’ fence. But, he did not know if
that was the right solution. They will work through those issues to address
their concern.

They will provide a water extension on
Hathaway Street that will stub out beyond the street so that any water can
be extended to future development and to their property if they so desire or
need it. Regarding amenity usage after dark they are looking at
restrictions by the homeowner’s association to limiting the times of day
that this area can be used or it cannot be used after dark. Also, it would
limit access from Avon Street so that only residents can use this.

Mr. Strucko asked if there were any questions for the applicant.

Mr. Zobrist questioned how they plan to integrate the existing home with the
planned development.

Mr. Pohl replied that the front porch on the house does not exactly line up;
however they see it fitting in nicely with what they propose. They plan to
remodel the house, but not hide it.

Andrew Boserman, Architect with Weatherhill Development, said that home is
actually surrounded by the single family component of the development. The home
was built in 2000. Essentially the new houses will be similar.

Mr. Zobrist noted that they were going to have some other members of the
Commission to satisfy when they come back that are much more sensitive to those
issues than others might be. That is the reason he was asking the question.
They were going to want to see that integrated in some way into the development
to where it looks like somebody thought about it.

Mr. Pohl noted that a minor revision was done in part to address some concerns
with the affordable housing and how it was attached to a townhouse. It helps
the situation that was brought up in regards to how this lot is laid out. He
explained the proposed townhouse layout.

Mr. Strucko invited public comment.

Gary Brooks, adjacent property owner, said that he represented the entire Brooks
family. He asked to expand and reinforce their concerns, which had been
mentioned. They want a privacy fence because they already have a driveway very
close to that property that they have problem with vehicular and foot traffic
cross over. They are looking for something there to prevent that and try to
keep their environment as close to what it is right now as possible. Their
water shed in this area is very delicate. They only get 1 gallon per minute out
of their best well. They are looking at a development coming from Biscuit Run.
They fear along with droughts coming more frequently that they are likely to see
their wells dry up. They have requested to be able to tap onto the water line.
Weatherhill has been working with them on this. They are looking at the idea of
a small park. They would not have a problem with a utility road or a private
road coming through there, but they would discourage any connecting road that
would go into that park. They fear what might take place in the park after
dark.

Rob Sprawls, resident of 1940 Avon Street for 22 years, said that his property
was totally surrounded by this development. The proposed development would be
on the south side of his property. He was a participant in the hearings that
were conducted in 2003 with Avon Park 1. He did not have any illusions because
this area has been designated as a development area and this project will
probably go through. His main concerns with the way Avon Park 1 has
proceeded. During that first phase when that property was bought and
developed they were told that they would receive a privacy fence with trees
planted. The privacy fence has not been built and the trees have not been
planted. There is a storm water run off retention pond that is on the north
side of his property. That was done and it intermittently has some water or no
water. It is mainly a mosquito trap. Their problem with it is that there was a
dam built to retain the water there. The dam was seeded with grass. There was
an ugly orange erosion control fence put on his north property line and also on
the ridge of that dam. There has nothing been ever done with that fence since
then other than it is falling down. The grass was planted about two years ago,
but has never been cut. He has not gotten a fence or any trees. There has been
no communication with the developer in terms of any concerns that he might
have. He was being totally enclosed by this project with a lot of pavement and
a lot of storm drains taking water off of his area that he pumps out of with his
well. He certainly has a concern in that regard. The houses on the north west
corner of his property are perhaps 20’ from the property line. On the new site
plan it appears that a house going in 10’ from the property line on the south
side in this new Avon Park II. He urged the Planning Commission to consider
carefully what their actual recommendation is since the recommendations for Avon
Park I did not appear to provide for his concerns. Nothing has been done
since. They are indicating that the existing vegetation will be preserved.
There is a line of evergreen trees that are right on his property line. He
would certainly hope that the evergreen trees would remain. He hoped that the
road would be chained off from Avon Street. It is a paved driveway with stone
pillars that could easily be sealed off. That would certainly be of a benefit
to his family. The staff report mentioned reducing the speed limit on Avon
Street to 35 to 45 miles per hours. He would highly endorse that. There is a
severe curve at his north property line. Therefore, there is no visibility
coming down off the hill to his driveway or any other driveways below that. He
did not understand their analysis that there would be 8 students that would live
in this 30 unit development. He felt that there would be a lot more than 8.
The traffic issue has not been addressed. The elimination of the second
driveway would help.

There being no further public comment, Mr. Strucko brought the matter before the
Commission. He noted that they would go through staff’s questions that started
on page 8 of the staff report.

·Is the design and layout
appropriate given some of the background? Does the Commission support Strafford
Way as a private street? Then are there any other issues that are in need of
resolution should be addressed.

Staff is concerned about how the layout of the
private street is going to function in terms of vehicles and pedestrians through
this area. It does not meet the Neighborhood Model design standards as far as
the planting strip and the sidewalk in place.

Mark Keeler, of Terra Concepts, addressed the private road issue. They have
tried to lay out all of the utilities at the rezoning stage. They have created
setbacks for the lots such that they had the same amount of distance away from
the travel way as one would have if they began at the back of the curb allowed
for a 6’ grassed parkway and then a 5’ sidewalk and at a minimum an additional
18’ for a car to park outside so it would not obstruct the sidewalk as was
discussed on an earlier project this evening. When they got to the point when
they had to overlay the easements that would be required for every single
utility they realized that combining the water and the sewer in the street,
which is the default method in designing these utilities, could be used. He
noted that one half of one easement can overlap that of the other. So instead
of two 20’ wide easements they would end up with a 30’ wide easement within
which both water and sewer may reside. Whenever possible it is advantageous for
all parties to have those associated utilities located underneath the pavement.
There is a variety of reasons for that. They get cut less and there is no
plantings allowed in those easements. Of course, they would not want to plant
in pavement. The road is 25’ wide from the back of the curb. But, a 30’
easement for water and sewer needs to overlay that and be centered. Part of the
water and sewer easement overlays that 6’ grass strips that they would typically
envision that would occur on these roadways. They overcome that situation in
projects like Willow Glen because they have links of roads and traffic volumes
that warrants a little wider than a 24’ wide road. Some of those roads in
Willow Glen had on street parking. They were inherently wider. Here these
roads are very short, dead ends with no anticipation of future extension.
Therefore, they flipped the 6’ grass parkway that would otherwise be sandwiched
between the sidewalk and the roadway so that it actually became a component of a
front yard so that that the grass or landscape area was now contiguous and move
the paving for the sidewalk up behind the curb. They feel that the trees will
have a better opportunity to survive if they are not sandwiched between asphalt
on a roadway and a sidewalk on another side. Furthermore, they feel that the
sidewalks will probably crack less. They strive to design all of their projects
to the standard protocol. They have an extenuating circumstance and have a
proposal that they wanted to put forward the Commission. They think that in
this very small and limited context that it was worthy of their consideration.

Mr. Zobrist said that they have some real
challenges ahead to get this to work in order to get some consensus among the
Commission. He felt that it was a difficult site and the Commission needs to
rely on the designer.

Mr. Strucko noted that the next question was
about Stafford Way as a private street. There are some qualifying statements in
the staff report that says since this street is not expected to interconnect to
an adjoining properties staff could accept a notion that this could remain a
private street.

Ms. Ragsdale asked for comments on the street
section proposed.

Mr. Zobrist said that he was probably okay with
it, but wanted to maybe sandwich another work session in before the public
hearing due to the absent members. It makes sense what Mr. Keller said because
of the low traffic volume. .

Ms. Ragsdale said that based on the discussion
staff and the applicant know what to work on and bring back for discussion and
what areas for them to pay attention to.

Mr. Cannon assumed that there was a reason why
they wanted the trees between the sidewalk and the street. He encouraged the
applicant to pay attention to the concerns of the neighbors resulting from Avon
Park I. It would benefit the developer and neighbor to work the issues out.

Mr. Strucko echoed that the neighbor’s concerns
should be addressed, particularly the privacy fence along the Brooks property
and the availability to tap into the public water line. He questioned if the
trees would be planted on private property.

Mr. Craddock and Mr. Zobrist agreed.

In summary, the Planning Commission held a work session to
discuss ZMA-2007-0005, Avon Park II. Ms. Ragsdale presented a power point
presentation to review the proposed layout, the private street request and any
other issue the Commission thought would be important to resolve before a public
hearing. Public comment was taken. The applicant’s representatives presented a
concept for revising the proposed layout of the development, explained the
proposal and answered questions.

The Commission reviewed and discussed the
proposal and answered questions posed by staff and made comments and
suggestions. No formal action was taken. The Commission made the following
comments and suggestions:

The Commission indicated the applicant’s
changes to the lot layout, specifically to the lots located adjacent to the
existing house within the development and the provision of more direct
access for pedestrians from Stratford Way to the open space area was an
improvement. The Commission recommended the applicant continue looking at
the layout in this area of the development to provide more direct driveway
access to the lots.

Further consideration of the proposed street
design for Stratford Way was needed. The Commission desired more
information as to demonstrate why the applicant’s variation should be
approved and more information as to why trees normally are placed between
the sidewalk and the street.

The applicant was encouraged to address the
neighbor concerns, both those resulting from the first phase of Avon Park
regarding installation of a privacy fence and comments made from other
neighbors regarding this proposed second phase, including a request for
fencing, public road interconnection, and extension of water.